*yes I know I say his last name wrong, it's Hooper not Hopper.* Even though I prefer the 1979 version, when it comes to which is more faithful it's a tough call. The 04 one has a larger focus on the towns people and Barlow is obviously closer to the book than the 79 version. The 04 still makes some significant changes though not in the least is having Ben die on the end! But I appreciate their focus on the town because no other adaptation does that. Which would you say is the closest to the book??
I like both and think both films did a good job at telling the story. Personally I like the 04 one a bit more because they added a human element to the vampires that made them more tragic. The scene with Susan is so sad because beneath the monster she had become she still had some humanity. The scene makes me cry sometimes especially since I love Susan in the 04. The 1979 one makes the vampires scary and I can see why most love that one a lot. Also agree I like Mark more in the 1979 version.
@@WhytheBookWins yeah. One for the Road is the last story in Night Shift, and Wolves of the Calla is the fifth book in the Dark Tower series. You'll find out what happened to Callahan after he got on the bus and you'll get a brief update on Ben and Mark
@@MrBoJanglesand he lists the three types of vampires in his multiverse and the differences between them. He did at least 2 more vampire short stories. Popsy and Night Flier. And a Dark Tower novella Sisters of Eleuria iirc.
Not read this book in so long, now I want to again. For generation X the scene with the vampire at the window is the one that is still reminisced about as the most terrifying thing our generation saw as kids, and we saw the 70s!
Not alone. I love the 2004 version, but I haven't watched it in a while. Plus, Rutgar Haur is Barlow in that version. I also love scene with Father Callahan in version.
I watched the 1979 version for the first time after watching the recent adaptation and your review of it. The vampire makeup effects was good and I liked the acting. I also could see how those scenes would have been creepy for the time period this was filmed, including that version of Barlow, but I still prefer the 2004 mini series. I loved all the acting in that one, and Barlow especially. I have always been a Rutger Haur fan and he scared me more than the 1979 version. The scene with Father Callahan and Barlow is my favorite and is the one I remember most. I also loved the ending. I don't know why, but it bothers me that neither the 79 or 24 version include Dud Rogers. I always felt bad for him. I guess they didn't want to offend anyone or something. One last thing, the scene with Mike Ryerson in the graveyard, begging the kid vampire to stop looking at him in 2004 version is great too.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah i liked the inclusion of Dud in the 04 one and Hauer does have some really creepy moments! Though I think the Mike graveyard scene was a better in the 79 movie.
I think Stephen King himself said it best. ""IT's basically Our Town with vampires."" In fact when we first meet Mark he has a role in a high school play of Our Town !
The 2004 version is a guilty pleasure for me. I know it's not great and is nowhere near as good as the 1979 version. But I still find myself coming back to it occasionally. I think it's better than this new one for sure.
I watched the movie a few years before reading the novel ('79 miniseries was seen at the age of 10, in 1982, book was read at age 13, in '85). Many of my friends also saw the miniseries, so it became part of our peer group shorthand, a component of our inside jokes and whatnot. As much as the miniseries scared the mess out of me, reading the novel is what made me want to be an author. 'Salem's Lot was one of the first novels I'd ever read, and I was amazed by the power King's writing had over me. I wanted that power, I wanted to be able to craft a story that ensorcelled my readers, drawing them into whatever world I wanted to bring them to. I don't know that I've managed that yet, but I keep trying.
@@WhytheBookWins I know, right? It latched its fangs onto me, sucked me right in (no pun intended) and never let go. That, and Pet Sematary...Oh, that's another one, that book was BLEAK!
@@WhytheBookWinsit's his 2nd published book. He had written others that were rejected. I forget the titles. One was kind of like Of Mice And Men and he eventually published but it didn't sound very good. Another was a post apocalyptic story and has never been published. I think there was about a race riot. It might have called A Sword In Darkness. He never published that one either. Some of the Bachman books were written around this time.
@@adrianburchell1467 Kurt Barlow has on one line of dialogue in the shooting script - I'm sure they would/could have added the line in adl if it were really needed.
there is a quite new tv series based on king's "jerusalem's lot" short story - chapelwaite which is pretty good, with adrian brody as the main lead it is close to h.p. lovecraft writing, doesn't have typical king's themes - drinking writer, childhood flashbacks and so on
She is the 1st 1 to die as so to give Ben a personal stake(no pun intended) in the story, so he had more of reason to kill Barlow, King wasn't being sexist or anything like that, she was the love interest, if Barlow had killed 1 of the men 1st, it wouldn't of had a personal significance to Ben
Seeing here that you do miniseries to Book comparisons, would consider doing Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited? You could do a comparison to both the miniseries and film. Also Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City. Two of my favorites, I have definite opinions and would love to know yours. Thank you for your channel.
I bought the 79’ version on blu-ray. Haven’t watched it yet. Been watching the rob Lowe version which is not bad. But I don’t have much to compare it to yet. 👍
Though i do like when they stick to the book, i'll admit having Barlow be a Nosferatu type Vampire who doesn't talk i thought was a nice addition. For those who haven't read the book, Barlow is made to be a Dracula rip off which i didn't really care about. One thing i did like with the Miniseries is that some of Barlow's speeches were instead spoken by his servent Styker played by the great James Mason.
The book is vastly better than any of the three formal adaptations. Bizarrely, the best miniseries tonally and spiritually influenced is Mike Flanagan's "Midnight Mass". To be clear, the only real connection between the two is a small, isolated town, lots of characters and a vampire...BUT the build-up and realization of what's happening to the town is expertly handled in MM and pretty well butchered in all of the Salem's Lot screen versions. Start with run-time - Midnight Mass unfolds over 7 x roughly 1 hour episodes. It is allowed to breath and introduce characters and provide both context and motivation for them in similar ways to the way Salem's Lot (novel) introduces the entire town's worth of characters and gives a creepy, slow build-up. The 2024 movie is utterly ruined by rushing through everything to fit a very compressed runtime and as a result, the actions of the main groups lose any connection to the audience and feel like random horror movie tropes instead of a group struggling to comprehend and understand what's happening and making mistakes along the way from confusion instead of sheer stupidity. In Midnight Mass, the story unfolds over about the first 5 hours with about 2 hours to wrap it all up and in the end, there's a much better payoff for the audience and much better viewing experience. What I loved in 'Salem's Lot (novel) was the overall story and character arcs - both good and bad. Next - Barlow. King has said he wrote Salem's Lot as a modern day reimagining of Dracula and his novel Barlow is amazing. He is terrifyingly strong and powerful but also has an arrogance and aloof personality that is amazingly brought out in the letter he leaves to taunt the group hunting him towards the end (Burke, Callahan, Mears, Petrie, Cody). I also LOVE the novel's Barlow taunting Callahan and destroying his faith. 2003 got the closest to this. 1979 was atrocious and one of the reasons I really can't stand it overall. In 1979, the big Barlow reveal after he crashes into the Petrie's kitchen is to show off the Nosferatu-styled vampire and because he is just monster and no malice or man at all, they chose to some how, some way have Straker show up in the kitchen doorway to deliver (the EXCELLENT) speech that Barlow directs at Callahan in the novel. 2024 is similarly bad. 2003 shows the best adaptation of Barlow breaking Callahan's faith by far, but even though Rutger Hauer does great work in the miniseries, he is still largely under-used and the character's menace and arrogance don't really come through too well. Finally, this is also true of the novel, the ending is VERY chaotic and so many things happening in short order, that all three versions are somewhat rushed. The 2003 changes with Mears and Petrie hunting for Callahan and Ben and Father C dying in the hospital was abysmally bad decision. The 1979 ending was just OK, but OK is leagues ahead of 2024 (god awful) and 2003 (too different and unnecessarily so). I just watched Midnight Mass for the first time in October and it inspired me to re-read the novel and when I did, my mental projections of the story (I visualize a lot when reading) were way different and much more enjoyable. Midnight Mass is a completely different vampire story, but its atmosphere, setting and execution put images in my mind that King's novel was able to use and delivered a much better overall experience than any other time I have read the book or watched one of the adaptations. It is 100% my recommended way to have the best overall experience. (* I would add in the short stories - which were included in the Illustrated special edition of the novel a few years back "Jerusalem's Lot" (prequel stuff) and "One for the Road" (kind of effective coda for the story).
And while we're on the subject of books turned into miniseries, have you done a video on The Thornbirds? Talk about awesome 80's epicness! And by the way, to all the people who joke about Jenny being the villain in Forrest Gump, she has nothing on Meggie Cleary! She is the worst!!!! Ya know, in my humble opinion. 😌
I hate when people claim Jenny was the "villain"! But I've heard of that one, though I don't know too much about it. I'll look into it, thanks for the recommendation!
To be completely honest, regardless of the varied cultures and traditions, you generally see depicted in media only Catholic Priests (and Shinto priests + Buddhist monks if the production is from the East) doing exorcism and similar actions. It kinda sticks with people I guess. (Funnily enough, the standard answer of the CC to any request of exorcism and such is "you need a doctor bro" - it takes a lot for them to even consider the presence of the supernatural. Also, I recall my religion teacher excluding ghosts and any other undead, stating that the CC position is that the dead and the living do not interact like that and if - IF - something is found to be "supernatural" is due to the devil, or something coming from the human mind). Folklore of course doesn't care. Of note on wether I believe any of the above - I am an agnostic, but I am a man full of contradictions and religions and folklore fascinate me.
Thanks for sharing! I find all of that really interesting too. In the book and show the priest does say how the church believes in evil with a lower case e, meaning they aren't going to jump to help with vampires and exorcism and such lol. Which goes along with what you say about them these days.
@@WhytheBookWinsI don't remember the characters in Dracula being Catholic specifically. I assumed they were Anglican or Episcopalians. I remember Harker saying that he was taught wearing the cross was considered idolatry so maybe that is a endorsement of Catholicism against evil. Don't know if the Transylvanians were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
@@user-so8fx3yp4s Stoker was Anglo-Irish, protestant (I presume). Romanians are Orthodox (and so was Vlad Tepes) but I am unsure if specifically the Transylvanian Hungarians and Germans were, I would assume Catholic.
My brother did that to me but instead of saying "BOO!" he'd throw the TV Guide up in the air just when the scariest part of a movie was happening, the loud fluttering of the TV Guide made me jump 10 feet high.
The one King book that really freaked out my mom. Mind you she was a kid & this is the girl who was afraid of Joe Dante’s “Piranha” 😅 she refuses to ever watch the ‘79 miniseries again; the book scared her that much
One of my favorite Stephen King - and vampire - novels of all time. I liked the 1979 miniseries and liked it, but have not seen the 2004 miniseries, and have zero interest in the new movie. How can you ever condense such an iconic novel into an hour and 45 minutes (the run time I saw for the movie)? Needless to say, I agree with you Laura, wholeheartedly that the book absolutely wins, here.
The crying he heard was not imaginary,,, it was him crying. The teacher was gay in both series but only closeted in the 70s version,,,, the later series they clearly state the teacher was gay.
2004 isn't that bad but Rutger Hauer is a terrible Barlow. I can't tell if she is being serious regarding Christianity and Vampires? She has all these books in the background but she thinks Scientology or Islam will do just as well? Huh?
I thought Hauer was fine, but apparently in that last scene he didn't even know his lines and had to read of cue cards. And yes I am serious about wondering why other religions couldn't works lol. There's other Christian religions even so why not one of them??
@@WhytheBookWins yeah but Bram and Eastern Europe and the product Vampires are from Catholic mythology. Same thing with Golems and Hebrew. Wendigos and Native beliefs.
Blasphemy, 2004 was far better than the original, barring differences in era and filmmaking. Vampires looking nicer would actually make sense. They are hunters, and seen to function mostly off of deception. Asking to be let in by friends and family, or like in legend asking for help. There was something offbeat and unnatural about them all which I loved. The scene where the vampire doesn't quite realize he is dead worked for me. They are shown to have some sense of self, when they rise there may be confusion as they are connected with the head vampire. It is also a bone their master tosses them. He is shown to offer the people deals, giving them what they want. This is not in the book, and they come across more like animals, their supernatural powers functioning on instinct. i.e. A woman can sense a man is heterosexual and could appear as attractive and inviting as she closes the gap. Or the kids hunting their parents may know to say what the parent wants to hear, but there is no actual planning going on. It is like a predator hiding for wary prey.
Hmm you do make a good point. Although they don't need to look appealing since they can hypnotize someone who looks them in the eyes. I may have softened towards the 04 version in the days since making this video. I think watching the newest movie made me realize the 04 one was actually not that bad lol. But I still prefer the 79. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@WhytheBookWins The 2004 version shows how the town died before Barlow came. I am pretty sure that the main reason that the Sheriff noped out, there wasn't anything left to fight for and he'd known it for a while. The vampire's appearance doesn't really change. You see them different. It is all a form of hypnosis and likely tied to how well it all fits together. Listening to their voices, seeing their glamours, looking into their eyes sealing the deal. The woman in the mortuary was just waking and had no connection to the two people who were told to expect something. They were confused at first because on the surface she looked and sounded normal, but it didn't work sp she attacks them sensing their suspicions. Susan at the end was likely just as dead eyed and pale as the rest of them. But had been dead longer, Barlow had been killed giving her some degree of independence, Ben was connected to her, and he was looking right into her eyes. She might have been telling the truth, they display varying degrees of sentience. But that wasn't the point. This would also explain how they all became so dead eyed and corpselike in the end. No guiding sentience, no reason for guile. Save it for the hunt. In the following years there were probably a lot of reports in the area of hearing screams for help in the woods, or people vanishing helping damsels in distress. I am going to listen to the audiobook.
That's awesome! I was a bit disappointed with it 😬 But I've seen other reviewers say good things so I'm glad there's people who like it. My video will be up later today if you want to check it out!
I was enjoying this review until you started getting all feminist. Susan died to move the story along to give a scared Ben more hate,anger and resolve to kill Barlow because he lost the woman he loved. Probably wouldn't have had the same impact if one of the guys he had just met had been bitten. Plus the scene where he killed Susan was heart breaking and taken from Dracula. All this drives the plot and taps into the readers emotions. It's nothing to do with your feminist opinions of casually sprouting kill a man there are more of them and expendable. You are a good reviewer but you need to keep your obvious political and religious views out of your videos and keep to the topic.
I prefer the book over anything the entertainment industrial complex (which King became a part of) churns out, especially nowadays, and I liked Barlow's character, but Reggie Nalder stole the effing show. Creepiest-looking actor ever. He made shlock like Zoltan, Hound of Dracula watchable. His best work is Mark of the Devil 1-2.
Agreed. The focus on Straker being the front man and Barlow being a beast makes this version really stand out from every other retelling of Dracula. The book also meanders and doesn't really have the proper crescendo needed for film - you can't "finish" a story and go on and on. Finishing the film in the Marsden House enhances the climax, you would have to introduce the cat and mouse chase much earlier in the film for it to work. Also a fun of the Petre house confrontation with Barlow taking place a bit earlier in the story and having Susan's father and Dr. Cody become one. Family dinners toward the beginning really help sell the era and small town feel. Where the original movie fails and the book shines is Father Callahan (even thought his introduction is a snooze!). Both the book and the original mini-series excel at capturing the reader/viewer's imagination and provide themes that will haunt you which is where the later two installments fail.
*yes I know I say his last name wrong, it's Hooper not Hopper.*
Even though I prefer the 1979 version, when it comes to which is more faithful it's a tough call.
The 04 one has a larger focus on the towns people and Barlow is obviously closer to the book than the 79 version. The 04 still makes some significant changes though not in the least is having Ben die on the end!
But I appreciate their focus on the town because no other adaptation does that.
Which would you say is the closest to the book??
I like both and think both films did a good job at telling the story. Personally I like the 04 one a bit more because they added a human element to the vampires that made them more tragic. The scene with Susan is so sad because beneath the monster she had become she still had some humanity. The scene makes me cry sometimes especially since I love Susan in the 04. The 1979 one makes the vampires scary and I can see why most love that one a lot. Also agree I like Mark more in the 1979 version.
Hooper drives the boat
Wolves of the Calla is like a spiritual sequel to 'Salem's Lot along with the short story One for the Road
By King? I'll have to read that soon!
@@WhytheBookWins yeah. One for the Road is the last story in Night Shift, and Wolves of the Calla is the fifth book in the Dark Tower series. You'll find out what happened to Callahan after he got on the bus and you'll get a brief update on Ben and Mark
@@MrBoJanglesand he lists the three types of vampires in his multiverse and the differences between them. He did at least 2 more vampire short stories. Popsy and Night Flier. And a Dark Tower novella Sisters of Eleuria iirc.
Not read this book in so long, now I want to again.
For generation X the scene with the vampire at the window is the one that is still reminisced about as the most terrifying thing our generation saw as kids, and we saw the 70s!
Yeah if I was a kid this definitely would have kept me up at night!
I am not sure why everyone pans the 2004 miniseries. It is actually closer to the novel, and the 1979 version.
I don't get the love the for 79 series even as a stand alone work. To each their own I guess.
Rob Lowe's endearing portrayal of the character makes the story work for me (unlike the other versions).
Not alone. I love the 2004 version, but I haven't watched it in a while. Plus, Rutgar Haur is Barlow in that version. I also love scene with Father Callahan in version.
I watched the 1979 version for the first time after watching the recent adaptation and your review of it. The vampire makeup effects was good and I liked the acting. I also could see how those scenes would have been creepy for the time period this was filmed, including that version of Barlow, but I still prefer the 2004 mini series. I loved all the acting in that one, and Barlow especially. I have always been a Rutger Haur fan and he scared me more than the 1979 version. The scene with Father Callahan and Barlow is my favorite and is the one I remember most. I also loved the ending. I don't know why, but it bothers me that neither the 79 or 24 version include Dud Rogers. I always felt bad for him. I guess they didn't want to offend anyone or something. One last thing, the scene with Mike Ryerson in the graveyard, begging the kid vampire to stop looking at him in 2004 version is great too.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah i liked the inclusion of Dud in the 04 one and Hauer does have some really creepy moments! Though I think the Mike graveyard scene was a better in the 79 movie.
I think Stephen King himself said it best. ""IT's basically Our Town with vampires."" In fact when we first meet Mark he has a role in a high school play of Our Town !
The 2004 version is a guilty pleasure for me. I know it's not great and is nowhere near as good as the 1979 version. But I still find myself coming back to it occasionally. I think it's better than this new one for sure.
Yeah definitely better than the new movie 😖 To be honest, I could definitely see myself watching the 04 one again, especially in a group setting.
I watched the movie a few years before reading the novel ('79 miniseries was seen at the age of 10, in 1982, book was read at age 13, in '85). Many of my friends also saw the miniseries, so it became part of our peer group shorthand, a component of our inside jokes and whatnot. As much as the miniseries scared the mess out of me, reading the novel is what made me want to be an author. 'Salem's Lot was one of the first novels I'd ever read, and I was amazed by the power King's writing had over me. I wanted that power, I wanted to be able to craft a story that ensorcelled my readers, drawing them into whatever world I wanted to bring them to.
I don't know that I've managed that yet, but I keep trying.
It's crazy or was only his second book! It was so good!
@@WhytheBookWins I know, right? It latched its fangs onto me, sucked me right in (no pun intended) and never let go. That, and Pet Sematary...Oh, that's another one, that book was BLEAK!
@keiththorpe9571 pet Sematary's ending shocked me 🙀 I covered that one a couple months back!
@@WhytheBookWinsit's his 2nd published book. He had written others that were rejected. I forget the titles. One was kind of like Of Mice And Men and he eventually published but it didn't sound very good. Another was a post apocalyptic story and has never been published. I think there was about a race riot. It might have called A Sword In Darkness. He never published that one either. Some of the Bachman books were written around this time.
Regarding the part about religious emblems working against evil, in Sleepy Hollow (1999), one guy carries an ankh for protection, heh.
Ooo good catch!
Turning Barlow into a Nosferatu creature who has foresaken speech and uses James Mason as his mouthpiece was an inspired choice by Hooper.
Agreed. To me, this is the key ingredient that makes Salem's Lot so classic.
Why Barlow doesn't speak is because the actor couldn't speak with the Nosferatu teeth in.
@@adrianburchell1467 Kurt Barlow has on one line of dialogue in the shooting script - I'm sure they would/could have added the line in adl if it were really needed.
Part of the 1979 version was filmed in Ferndale, California. Interesting town. I was there decades ago and their gas prices were very high.
there is a quite new tv series based on king's "jerusalem's lot" short story - chapelwaite
which is pretty good, with adrian brody as the main lead
it is close to h.p. lovecraft writing, doesn't have typical king's themes - drinking writer, childhood flashbacks and so on
Oh cool! I'll look it up!
She is the 1st 1 to die as so to give Ben a personal stake(no pun intended) in the story, so he had more of reason to kill Barlow, King wasn't being sexist or anything like that, she was the love interest, if Barlow had killed 1 of the men 1st, it wouldn't of had a personal significance to Ben
Yeah agreed. I mention this again in my video on the new movie and talk about this aspect of her death.
Seeing here that you do miniseries to Book comparisons, would consider doing Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited? You could do a comparison to both the miniseries and film. Also Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City. Two of my favorites, I have definite opinions and would love to know yours. Thank you for your channel.
I definitely would like to cover Brideshead Revisited! I've heard so much about that book.
@@WhytheBookWins I won't say another word until you seen/read. No spoilers. But I promise you it's worth it.
Being a nearly lifelong fan of most things SALEM'S LOT, I must say that this video is fantastic! Thank you!
Glad you liked it! 😀
Was great watching the 79 version on TV as a kid and having to wait for the 2nd part
I have read this book every fall for the last 20 years. Love the original miniseries; the only movie to ever give me nightmares.
That's so cool! Do you know what the deal is with the 1951 fire?? Like was it set for a similar reason as the fire Ben and Mark set in the end?
I bought the 79’ version on blu-ray. Haven’t watched it yet. Been watching the rob Lowe version which is not bad. But I don’t have much to compare it to yet. 👍
Yeah the 2004 one is decent, but the 79 is much better imo.
I agree on all points!
Though i do like when they stick to the book, i'll admit having Barlow be a Nosferatu type Vampire who doesn't talk i thought was a nice addition. For those who haven't read the book, Barlow is made to be a Dracula rip off which i didn't really care about. One thing i did like with the Miniseries is that some of Barlow's speeches were instead spoken by his servent Styker played by the great James Mason.
Yeah I can see the appeal of both versions of Barlow.
My dad always tells me this is the Steven King title that scared him.
I beleive it!
My mom was also freaked out by the book too; same with the ‘79 miniseries. She still refuses to revisit it
I was a huge fan of the book when I was a teenager. Like you, I prefer the book most, & '79 was for the most part better than the '04 version.
Yeah the 04 version tried to be more faithful in many ways, yet it still isn't as good.
The book is vastly better than any of the three formal adaptations. Bizarrely, the best miniseries tonally and spiritually influenced is Mike Flanagan's "Midnight Mass". To be clear, the only real connection between the two is a small, isolated town, lots of characters and a vampire...BUT the build-up and realization of what's happening to the town is expertly handled in MM and pretty well butchered in all of the Salem's Lot screen versions.
Start with run-time - Midnight Mass unfolds over 7 x roughly 1 hour episodes. It is allowed to breath and introduce characters and provide both context and motivation for them in similar ways to the way Salem's Lot (novel) introduces the entire town's worth of characters and gives a creepy, slow build-up. The 2024 movie is utterly ruined by rushing through everything to fit a very compressed runtime and as a result, the actions of the main groups lose any connection to the audience and feel like random horror movie tropes instead of a group struggling to comprehend and understand what's happening and making mistakes along the way from confusion instead of sheer stupidity. In Midnight Mass, the story unfolds over about the first 5 hours with about 2 hours to wrap it all up and in the end, there's a much better payoff for the audience and much better viewing experience. What I loved in 'Salem's Lot (novel) was the overall story and character arcs - both good and bad.
Next - Barlow. King has said he wrote Salem's Lot as a modern day reimagining of Dracula and his novel Barlow is amazing. He is terrifyingly strong and powerful but also has an arrogance and aloof personality that is amazingly brought out in the letter he leaves to taunt the group hunting him towards the end (Burke, Callahan, Mears, Petrie, Cody). I also LOVE the novel's Barlow taunting Callahan and destroying his faith. 2003 got the closest to this. 1979 was atrocious and one of the reasons I really can't stand it overall. In 1979, the big Barlow reveal after he crashes into the Petrie's kitchen is to show off the Nosferatu-styled vampire and because he is just monster and no malice or man at all, they chose to some how, some way have Straker show up in the kitchen doorway to deliver (the EXCELLENT) speech that Barlow directs at Callahan in the novel. 2024 is similarly bad. 2003 shows the best adaptation of Barlow breaking Callahan's faith by far, but even though Rutger Hauer does great work in the miniseries, he is still largely under-used and the character's menace and arrogance don't really come through too well.
Finally, this is also true of the novel, the ending is VERY chaotic and so many things happening in short order, that all three versions are somewhat rushed. The 2003 changes with Mears and Petrie hunting for Callahan and Ben and Father C dying in the hospital was abysmally bad decision. The 1979 ending was just OK, but OK is leagues ahead of 2024 (god awful) and 2003 (too different and unnecessarily so).
I just watched Midnight Mass for the first time in October and it inspired me to re-read the novel and when I did, my mental projections of the story (I visualize a lot when reading) were way different and much more enjoyable. Midnight Mass is a completely different vampire story, but its atmosphere, setting and execution put images in my mind that King's novel was able to use and delivered a much better overall experience than any other time I have read the book or watched one of the adaptations. It is 100% my recommended way to have the best overall experience. (* I would add in the short stories - which were included in the Illustrated special edition of the novel a few years back "Jerusalem's Lot" (prequel stuff) and "One for the Road" (kind of effective coda for the story).
And while we're on the subject of books turned into miniseries, have you done a video on The Thornbirds? Talk about awesome 80's epicness! And by the way, to all the people who joke about Jenny being the villain in Forrest Gump, she has nothing on Meggie Cleary! She is the worst!!!! Ya know, in my humble opinion. 😌
I hate when people claim Jenny was the "villain"!
But I've heard of that one, though I don't know too much about it. I'll look into it, thanks for the recommendation!
@@WhytheBookWins You're welcome!
@@BeckyLStoutWriter yes jenny isn't the villain I never read the book watched the film
To be completely honest, regardless of the varied cultures and traditions, you generally see depicted in media only Catholic Priests (and Shinto priests + Buddhist monks if the production is from the East) doing exorcism and similar actions. It kinda sticks with people I guess.
(Funnily enough, the standard answer of the CC to any request of exorcism and such is "you need a doctor bro" - it takes a lot for them to even consider the presence of the supernatural. Also, I recall my religion teacher excluding ghosts and any other undead, stating that the CC position is that the dead and the living do not interact like that and if - IF - something is found to be "supernatural" is due to the devil, or something coming from the human mind). Folklore of course doesn't care.
Of note on wether I believe any of the above - I am an agnostic, but I am a man full of contradictions and religions and folklore fascinate me.
Thanks for sharing! I find all of that really interesting too.
In the book and show the priest does say how the church believes in evil with a lower case e, meaning they aren't going to jump to help with vampires and exorcism and such lol. Which goes along with what you say about them these days.
@@WhytheBookWinsI don't remember the characters in Dracula being Catholic specifically. I assumed they were Anglican or Episcopalians. I remember Harker saying that he was taught wearing the cross was considered idolatry so maybe that is a endorsement of Catholicism against evil. Don't know if the Transylvanians were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
But Stoker being Irish does make me think he was probably Catholic.
@@user-so8fx3yp4s Anglo-Irish. Protestant.
@@user-so8fx3yp4s Stoker was Anglo-Irish, protestant (I presume). Romanians are Orthodox (and so was Vlad Tepes) but I am unsure if specifically the Transylvanian Hungarians and Germans were, I would assume Catholic.
I remember watching the 79 version on TV about 24 years ago as a kid and my dad would randomly go "BOO!" such a jerk
😆
My brother did that to me but instead of saying "BOO!" he'd throw the TV Guide up in the air just when the scariest part of a movie was happening, the loud fluttering of the TV Guide made me jump 10 feet high.
Nice hair
All I understood is it involves vampires in a town and almost everyone 😅 dies
That's the gist 😆
good review. just subbed
Thank you! 🤗
Isn't the 1979 version a movie? I remember seeing it in theaters.
It's originally a mini series but they did make a cut that was movie length! I didn't watch that version so I'm not sure what they cut.
The one King book that really freaked out my mom. Mind you she was a kid & this is the girl who was afraid of Joe Dante’s “Piranha” 😅 she refuses to ever watch the ‘79 miniseries again; the book scared her that much
😆 It has some creepy moments!
One of my favorite Stephen King - and vampire - novels of all time.
I liked the 1979 miniseries and liked it, but have not seen the 2004 miniseries, and have zero interest in the new movie. How can you ever condense such an iconic novel into an hour and 45 minutes (the run time I saw for the movie)?
Needless to say, I agree with you Laura, wholeheartedly that the book absolutely wins, here.
Yeah I'm curious how they will condense it 🤔
@@WhytheBookWinstotally agree, just wondering which characters and their stories are going to be sacrificed to the run-time monster...
Of the two miniseries the 79 version is closer to the book to me i really enjoyed Rutger hauer version of Barlow i didn't like the 2004 adaptation
In some ways the 04 tries to be closer to the book, and yet they do make some of their own significant changes.
I can’t even count how many times I’ve read this book over the years😂
It seems like the kind of book where with each read you discover something new!
Tell me you're not a horror movie fan without actually telling me... by mispronouncing Tobe Hooper's name.
*Hooper, Not Hopper
The crying he heard was not imaginary,,, it was him crying.
The teacher was gay in both series but only closeted in the 70s version,,,, the later series they clearly state the teacher was gay.
Toby HOOPER. HOOPER. Not "Hopper"
Thanks for commenting. I acknowledge I said his name wrong in the pinned comment.
It’s Hooper not Hopper.
Right! I knew that but sometimes get those two names in particular mixed up.
2004 isn't that bad but Rutger Hauer is a terrible Barlow. I can't tell if she is being serious regarding Christianity and Vampires? She has all these books in the background but she thinks Scientology or Islam will do just as well? Huh?
I thought Hauer was fine, but apparently in that last scene he didn't even know his lines and had to read of cue cards.
And yes I am serious about wondering why other religions couldn't works lol. There's other Christian religions even so why not one of them??
@@WhytheBookWins yeah but Bram and Eastern Europe and the product Vampires are from Catholic mythology. Same thing with Golems and Hebrew. Wendigos and Native beliefs.
@@handsomestik true, that's a good point.
Blasphemy, 2004 was far better than the original, barring differences in era and filmmaking.
Vampires looking nicer would actually make sense. They are hunters, and seen to function mostly off of deception. Asking to be let in by friends and family, or like in legend asking for help. There was something offbeat and unnatural about them all which I loved.
The scene where the vampire doesn't quite realize he is dead worked for me. They are shown to have some sense of self, when they rise there may be confusion as they are connected with the head vampire. It is also a bone their master tosses them. He is shown to offer the people deals, giving them what they want. This is not in the book, and they come across more like animals, their supernatural powers functioning on instinct. i.e. A woman can sense a man is heterosexual and could appear as attractive and inviting as she closes the gap. Or the kids hunting their parents may know to say what the parent wants to hear, but there is no actual planning going on. It is like a predator hiding for wary prey.
Hmm you do make a good point. Although they don't need to look appealing since they can hypnotize someone who looks them in the eyes.
I may have softened towards the 04 version in the days since making this video. I think watching the newest movie made me realize the 04 one was actually not that bad lol. But I still prefer the 79.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@WhytheBookWins The 2004 version shows how the town died before Barlow came. I am pretty sure that the main reason that the Sheriff noped out, there wasn't anything left to fight for and he'd known it for a while.
The vampire's appearance doesn't really change. You see them different. It is all a form of hypnosis and likely tied to how well it all fits together. Listening to their voices, seeing their glamours, looking into their eyes sealing the deal. The woman in the mortuary was just waking and had no connection to the two people who were told to expect something. They were confused at first because on the surface she looked and sounded normal, but it didn't work sp she attacks them sensing their suspicions. Susan at the end was likely just as dead eyed and pale as the rest of them. But had been dead longer, Barlow had been killed giving her some degree of independence, Ben was connected to her, and he was looking right into her eyes. She might have been telling the truth, they display varying degrees of sentience. But that wasn't the point.
This would also explain how they all became so dead eyed and corpselike in the end. No guiding sentience, no reason for guile. Save it for the hunt. In the following years there were probably a lot of reports in the area of hearing screams for help in the woods, or people vanishing helping damsels in distress.
I am going to listen to the audiobook.
David Souls gf got dressed up specially for him at the end to seduce him, and pursued him
Good morning!
I watched the new film last night, and loved the suspense and fast pace!
That's awesome! I was a bit disappointed with it 😬 But I've seen other reviewers say good things so I'm glad there's people who like it.
My video will be up later today if you want to check it out!
I was enjoying this review until you started getting all feminist. Susan died to move the story along to give a scared Ben more hate,anger and resolve to kill Barlow because he lost the woman he loved. Probably wouldn't have had the same impact if one of the guys he had just met had been bitten. Plus the scene where he killed Susan was heart breaking and taken from Dracula. All this drives the plot and taps into the readers emotions. It's nothing to do with your feminist opinions of casually sprouting kill a man there are more of them and expendable. You are a good reviewer but you need to keep your obvious political and religious views out of your videos and keep to the topic.
I get it was reminiscent of Lucy, but even Dracula had Mina. So if Susan is going to die first, I wish King had another woman as part of the group.
I prefer the book over anything the entertainment industrial complex (which King became a part of) churns out, especially nowadays, and I liked Barlow's character, but Reggie Nalder stole the effing show. Creepiest-looking actor ever. He made shlock like Zoltan, Hound of Dracula watchable. His best work is Mark of the Devil 1-2.
Yeah he was so scary looking! Those teeth 🫣
@@WhytheBookWins And those mysterious facial scars he had for real.
The '79 miniseries improves on the novel.
How so I would love to hear your opinion
Agreed. The focus on Straker being the front man and Barlow being a beast makes this version really stand out from every other retelling of Dracula. The book also meanders and doesn't really have the proper crescendo needed for film - you can't "finish" a story and go on and on. Finishing the film in the Marsden House enhances the climax, you would have to introduce the cat and mouse chase much earlier in the film for it to work. Also a fun of the Petre house confrontation with Barlow taking place a bit earlier in the story and having Susan's father and Dr. Cody become one. Family dinners toward the beginning really help sell the era and small town feel. Where the original movie fails and the book shines is Father Callahan (even thought his introduction is a snooze!). Both the book and the original mini-series excel at capturing the reader/viewer's imagination and provide themes that will haunt you which is where the later two installments fail.
The 79 mansion looks great, guano and feathers everywhere
Nah..
@@saidi7975 Wrong.